Apple After Jobs

recoiledsnake writes "The connection between Apple and Steve Jobs is unlike any other brand and CEO relationship in corporate America, maybe the world. While Bill Gates has successfully transitioned himself away from his day job at Microsoft, can Apple do without Jobs at all? Once word started circulating that Jobs may be ill, Apple stock took a considerable hit, dropping more than $10 a share. And when Mr. Jobs was absent from last week's quarterly earnings conference call, the questions started again — and the stock fell again. What does this mean for corporate users of Apple for whom switching costs are high? Can Apple continue innovating in Job's absence?"

Comments

But more importantly

[JamesP]

Can the press, or maybe slashdot, stop speculating??

Maybe today is Apple trifecta day, you never know...

Re:Come on, guys.

[elrous0]

Yeah, but remember what happened when he left before? They ended up losing a huge amount of market share and got their asses handed to them by MS. Certainly Apple would survive, but would it ever again be the same kind of force that it was under Jobs' charismatic leadership? He's not just a CEO, he's a symbol. And much as I personally despise his smug attitude and heavy-handed leadership, it has given him a certain cache among Apple users that can't be replaced with just any old CEO in a business suit.

Yes, but with a twist

[wandazulu]

I did a research project on Polaroid and came to the conclusion that, like Jobs and Apple, Polaroid was essentially Land's company and after he died, it spiraled rapidly downhill. They had some amazing stuff and once their "vision" had been lost, they were caught short by all the tech that came after.

With Jobs and Apple, I think the situation is the same only insofar as, pointed out in the article and elsewhere, Jobs and Apple are synonymous. The difference, I see, is that Land was the chief guy people expected all tech advances to come; once Land left there wasn't any one person to keep their eye on the industry. Jobs, however, is not the tech guy; he has a *lot* of good people who are clearly making great stuff, only to be held in check by Jobs until he's satisfied they "have a product".

Apple without Jobs would probably put out more products quicker, and that is the problem; Jobs is the "great floodgate" for a company that probably is literally bursting with cool, but unpolished, stuff that, if put out in the marketplace, would get a lot of buzz, but then probably sink under the weight of bugs.

Obviously Jobs can't be there forever, but unlike Microsoft that has been happy to throw everything and anything at the wall to see what sticks (and promise it'll stick better in the next version), Apple needs that special someone who can tell when a they "have a product", as well as be the human face to the company.

So yes, Apple can continue and prosper without Steve Jobs, so long as they find someone who is just like Steve Jobs.

Any takers?

counterproductive speculation

[reversible physicist]

Jobs is 53 and has no life threatening illness. The cancer he had in 2004 was of a type that usually doesn't recur, and both Apple and Jobs have said that it hasn't recurred. Thus the odds are that Jobs will be in charge for at least the next decade. There's no point in speculating on how Apple would do without him that far in the future. TFA is just "analyst talk" directed at manipulating the stock price.

Rob Enderle - Enough Said

[oh_my_080980980]

The majority of this article is based on opinion from Rob Enderle. Enough said. The man is an absolute pin-head. This is the man, who stated that SCO had a case against IBM.

Nothing to see here but the ravings of a lunatic.

WTF

[gigamonkey]

Talk to an apple employee about what they think of Steve. Everyone I have ever talked to thinks he is a nut job. Everyone I have talked to is dearly afraid of him. No one wants to be near him for fear of losing their job. I think Apple needs to be rid of him.

Re:Come on, guys.

[TheRaven64]

At NeXT, he founded a company and went from nothing to a company he sold for around $400m. At Pixar, he started, once again, from nothing, and built a company he later sold for $7.4b. Between Steve Jobs leaving Apple and his return, the stock price roughly doubled, over a 12 year period - an average annual growth rate of around 6% - slightly ahead of inflation, but not much. Since his return, it has gone up by a factor of 75 over 11 years - around a 43% annual growth rate. If you'd invested $1000 in Apple when he left, you'd have had $2000 when he returned. If you'd kept that money in Apple, you'd have $150,000 now. If you'd had a time machine that let you see into the future, but not past 1997, and had sold it at the high point in the intervening years, you'd have around $16,000.